About your Search

20121201
20121231
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)
. >>> i'm going to again submit this, if you would. my name is bernard showed en. i'm with san francisco tomorrow. the issues that i raised are obligatory. [speaker not understood]. it is an obligation for your consideration. the problem is that c-e-q-a does not exist in an enforceable manner in the city of san francisco. it does not meet the mandates of professional and state mandates. there is no means of enforcing findings of the vacation needs as required by c-e-q-a. it is not simply and with good intention that we address c-e-q-a, but we address it in the extent it needs mitigation. we do not have the institution, resources, or planning expertise in evidence that regard affordability or habitability for the city's costs and the people who live here. it's not about beautification cumulatively. it is community, social equity. it's not just the cost to the developer, but the cost to the public that is entertained. if there were adequate research in mitigation and a condition of assessment of needs by a professional staff the public would not need to expensively respond. i bring in ques
francisco. i'm also a resident of san francisco and i'm joined in my comments today by the wild equity institute. we at the center strongly support the twin purposes of c-e-q-a which are environmental protection and informed self-government. and we all know that compliance with c-e-q-a including public input has improved countless public and private projects in california over the last 40 years. it's resulted in tangible protection for endangered species and their habitats, cleaner hair and water and more efficient use of scarce public resources. although many of the proposed amendments before you today appear to be technical conforming changes, the proposal as a whole would make public participation in city decision making even more difficult. even more difficult than sitting in these hard benches for many hours as we've done in many chambers here. and we're concerned that the proposed amendments improperly subvert the important public informed self-government principles of c-e-q-a. so, first and foremost, the repeal of existing appeal procedures and administrative code 31.16 and the
to say is there is a letter from coalition from san francisco neighborhoods and it says, therefore we urge you to strongly disapprove this proposed legislation in your recommendation to the board of supervisors. here are 12 copies. thank you very much. >> thank you. [laughter] (applause) >> excuse me, excuse me. please, no outbursts or disruptions. thank you. >>> commissioners, good afternoon. judy berkowitz, coalition for san francisco neighborhoods. the coalition urges you to strongly disapprove this proposal in your recommendation to the board of supervisors. along with we would -- we urge you to -- one of you to make a motion of improper notice because you were not provided with the appropriate documents in a timely manner. i'd like to warn you, there may or may not be hyperbole ensuing. [laughter] >>> this proposal is basically environmental deregulation. as an example, i believe commissioner moore asked, and i would like to bring up again several others of park merced. if park merced had undergone this -- if this legislation had been in place when park merced was first a twinkle
noticing for exemptions. however, in san francisco, the approval of many currently exempt projects are noticed. this proposal would augment our existing noticing procedures by requiring the notice for exemptions. and as i explained earlier, the notes would explain that you have the right to appeal a hearing from the project. it would provide postings of approval actions and inform the public on exactly how and when to file an appeal. the process is now in place is less clear to the public as it relies on many things. we have to look at board of the clerk procedures. there is a city attorney opinion letter. and every individual determination for an appeal if appropriate, is it timely, has to be reviewed by the city attorney for review by determination. important to the hpc in particular, the proposed procedures would change nothing about how historic resources are evaluated under see qualitiv so, there is some confusion as you heard about that. there would be -- the only change relative to historic resources would be a small change to the special noticing that happens to those who a
. >>> commissioners, good afternoon. judy berkowitz, coalition for san francisco neighborhoods. the coalition urges you to strongly disapprove this proposal in your recommendation to the board of supervisors. along with we would -- we urge you to -- one of you to make a motion of improper notice because you were not provided with the appropriate documents in a timely manner. i'd like to warn you, there may or may not be hyperbole ensuing. [laughter] >>> this proposal is basically environmental deregulation. as an example, i believe commissioner moore asked, and i would like to bring up again several others of park merced. if park merced had undergone this -- if this legislation had been in place when park merced was first a twinkle in the eye, everybody weighed in on it with approval because it was all two stories and it fit in the good earn apartments that are there now. however, at the end its was power buildings and now is undergoing litigation. * fit in with the garden apartments there is one instance, a very clear example what would change had this been in place or had it not been in place. i
're the real odd duck in california because of our density. there is no place else quite like san francisco. >> okay. commissioner ortiz-cartagena? >> i just have one question to clarify some thoughts in my head. i live in the southeast sector of the city. my impression is that we are not in a convenience zone, because there is no supermarket, excluding a 7-eleven that meets the criteria of the revenue mark. so i think it might have been answered, but i'm not clear. all of those small businesses, all of those conveniences stores, do they have to pay the $100 or they are not in a convenience zone? >> actually the southeast sector and the whole eastside of the city is served by scrapyards and existing metal recyclers. >> okay. >> so they can establish a zone there and that creates nearby what is called "nearby convenience." that kind of exempts the supermarkets. >> okay. >> so you are okay there. say you have got this kind of odd schizophrenia with lots of things over on 3rd street, nothing over on the west side and the north side. but that is why you are okay there in terms of providi
in terms of if there were some recommendations coming out of san francisco, there is a vehicle for us to talk to the folks up there. >> great. >> this convenience zone, is that unique to california? >> it is. it's very unusual. i am from the east coast and grew up with the bottle bill there and it's very different. it's very successful here and they are talking about using it as a national model. there is an effort to try to create more jobs by creating more recycling infrastructure. because many states don't have anything at all and the stuff is just thrown out all over the place if you are driving across the country. they are looking at this particular law as a value and it's funny we're the real odd duck in california because of our density. there is no place else quite like san francisco. >> okay. commissioner ortiz-cartagena? >> i just have one question to clarify some thoughts in my head. i live in the southeast sector of the city. my impression is that we are not in a convenience zone, because there is no supermarket, excluding a 7-eleven that meets the criteria of the rev
'm not sure. i was thinking whether san francisco, for instance, could pass an ordinance that took the existing bottle bill and put stronger rules in it? i thought we could do that, but i was told by someone that we're superseding state law and the stores would argue that you can't do that. so i'm not sure. i can't really answer that? >> i think the best way to go about it is to petition the state to carve out something for san francisco? is that our best approach? >> i wish i would say there was -- there is an existing collaborative process. it's pretty much you say things to the state and they kind of respond. it would be ideal to have a slightly more collaborative approach and actually, i think where we, the greater extent that we come up with something here, that we can propose to them, the better. and if we shape the state law a little bit with these amendments that are the opportunity for amendments, for instance, raising the in-lieu fee from $100 to $500 or some higher number will give us more tools. like i said, we're sort of in new turf and no one has done this befo
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)